In April 2009 Bath and Ingalls agreed to the Navy’s surface combatant plans, thus heralding a significant restructuring within the American naval shipbuilding community. Under the agreements, the USA would end production at 3 Graf Spee sized DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class “destroyers,” but shift all production from the Congressionally-mandated joint arrangements to General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Maine, which had already made program-related investments in advanced shipbuilding technologies.

Northrop Grumman (now Huntington Ingalls Industries) would retain its DDG-1000 deckhouse work, but their main exchange was additional orders for DDG-51 Arleigh Burke Class destroyers. Their Ingalls yard in Pascagoula, Mississippi would continue building the DDG-51 destroyers, beginning with 2 ordered in FY 2010-2011.

Advertisement

The US Navy’s Revised DDG-51 Plan

DDG-1000(click to view full)

With the DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class ended at 3 ships, the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke Class ships will become more important to the future navy. The Navy’s FY 2011 budget also terminated the planned CG (X) cruiser program as unaffordable. Instead, the US Navy would field an updated DDG-51 Flight III version, starting in FY 2016.

That date has been pushed back, owing to technical issues with the Flight III ships. Under the current plan, the DDG-51 Flight IIA Restart version would remain in production from FY 2010-2017, buying 13 ships in total (DDG 113 – 125) under a multi-year buy program. Huntington Ingalls Industries ships ordered to date are both named after Congressional Medal of Honor recipients, and include:

DDG 113 John Finn

DDG 114 Ralph Johnson

Both Bath Iron Works and HII will continue to build ships of class, but lead yard status for the “DDG-51 restart” ships shifted to Northrop Grumman (now HII) during the restructuring. GD Bath Iron Works is currently contracted to build DDG 115 Rafael Peralta and & DDG 116 Thomas Hudner, as the DDG-51 follow-yard.

Beyond the Flight IIAs, US Navy plans once called for buying an undetermined number of DDG-51 Flight IIIs from FY 2016 through at least FY 2022, and perhaps until FY 2031. The follow-on DDG-51 Flight IIIs are expected to carry a smaller version of the new Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR-S) dual-band active array that was slated for the canceled CG (X), along with the upgraded power and cooling systems required to support it. Other enhancements will be fleshed out as detailed design work on the Flight III commences, reportedly in FY 2012-2013. Unfortunately, there have been early reports that integration of the AMDR radar could prove to be a problem. The new radar will need to have a power draw that the ship can handle, cooling needs that the ship’s design can meet, and a size that can fit within the ship’s available space, all without changing the destroyer’s balance and stability. That is, to put it mildly, a challenge. So, too, are growing cost estimates that are edging the DDG-51 Flight III toward the price of larger and more advanced DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class ships.

Flight III buys now appear set to start no earlier than FY 2018, if indeed they start at all. Current plans do call for an interim step, however, as part of the proposed 2012-2017 multi-year buy.

Under the current multi-year proposal, 1 of 2 FY 2016 ships (DDG 123), and both FY 2017 ships (DDG 124-125), will “incorporate Flight III capability,” but not the new radars themselves. The addition of the AMDR-S radar and other associated systems would be funded as an engineering change proposal (ECP), so it doesn’t look like it’s affecting multi-year pricing. Otherwise, the Navy wouldn’t be able to show enough savings [1] to justify a multi-year buy under US laws. The Flight III ECP won’t be awarded until the Flight III Milestone Decision Authority approves the configuration, and the greatest risk would be changes that involve significant retrofits of DDG 123-125, beyond adding the AMDR radar. Those kinds of changes are always much more expensive than installing systems during ship construction.

Contracts & Key Events

Article coverage essentially terminated in FY 2013, as the USA moved to a multi-year block-buy from both shipyards to finance remaining Flight IIA destroyers, and the initial Flight III ships.

One thing to notice while reading these is that ship construction contracts do not include important equipment like guns, radar, combat systems, missile launchers, etc. Those are bought independently as “Government Furnished Equipment,” though ship construction contracts do pay to have that equipment installed in the ships. Many of those contracts are not publicly announced, or not broken out specifically by ship. As such, any ancillary contracts covered here are suggestive and informative, not comprehensive. Indeed, those “ancillary” contracts make up the largest portion of the ship’s total cost.

FY 2013 – 2014

Nov 4/13: DDG 113. HII officially lays the keel for DDG 113 John Finn. She’s the 1st ship of the DDG 51 program restart, and will become the 29th Arleigh Burke Class ship built by HII. Sources: US NAVSEA, “Keel Laid for Future USS John Finn”.

FY 2012

June 7/12: Lead vs. Follow Yard. Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives a $17.3 million cost-plus-award-fee/ cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with performance incentives, for DDG 51 class follow yard services. The firm explained that they remain the follow-yard behind General Dynamics’ Bath Iron Works for previous Arleigh Burke Class destroyers in the US Fleet (DDGs 51-112).

As the follow yard, they offer many of the same services as the lead yard, when required. That includes engineering, technical, material procurement and production support; configuration; class flight upgrades and new technology support; data and logistics management; lessons learned analysis; acceptance trials; post delivery test and trials; post shakedown availability support; reliability and maintainability; system safety program support; material and fleet turnover support; shipyard engineering teams; crew training, design tool/ design standardization, detail design development, and other technical and engineering analyses for the purpose of supporting DDG 51 class ship construction and test and trials.

In addition, DDG 51 class follow-yard services may provide design, engineering, procurement and manufacturing/ production services to support design feasibility studies and analyses that modify DDG 51 class destroyers for Foreign Military Sales programs. Japan’s Kongou Class, and South Korea’s KDX-III destroyers, are both examples of that phenomenon.

Work on this contract will be performed in Pascagoula, MS (98%), and Washington, DC (2%), and is expected to be complete by February 2013. This contract was not competitively procured by US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC, as these relationships were set a long time ago (N00024-12-C-2312).

DDG 113: John Finn, who retired as a lieutenant, received the Medal of Honor from Adm. Chester Nimitz for displaying “magnificent courage in the face of almost certain death” during the Japanese attack on military installations in Hawaii during Pearl Harbor.

DDG 114: Marine Corps Pfc. Ralph Henry Johnson was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for shouting a warning to his fellow Marines and hurling himself on an explosive device, saving the life of one Marine and preventing the enemy from penetrating his sector of the patrol’s perimeter during the Vietnam War.

If that’s true, it’s about the same cost as a DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class ship, in return for less performance, more vulnerability, and less future upgrade space. AMDR isn’t a final design yet, so it’s still worthwhile to ask what it could cost to give the Flight IIIs’ radar and combat systems ballistic missile defense capabilities – R&D for the function doesn’t go away when it’s rolled into a separate program. Indeed, if the Flight III cost estimate is true, it raises the question of why that would be a worthwhile use of funds, and re-opens the issue of whether continuing DDG-1000 production and upgrades might make more sense. DoD Buzz.

FY 2011

Sept 26/11: The US Navy releases the totals for the June 15/11 contract: $783.6 million in shipbuilding costs for DDG 113. Note that this is just the shipbuilder’s share. It excludes key items like radars, electronics, weapons, and other “government-furnished equipment.” For the recent DDG 1001/1002 contract, Bath Iron Works’ shipbuilding costs were a bit more than $2 billion for 2 ships, each of which is expected to cost a bit less than $3 billion when all is said and done. The actual cost of DDG 113/114 would work out to around $2 billion each at a similar ratio. Equipment for an Arleigh Burke Flight IIA ship has a long production history, is less sophisticated in some ways than DDG 1000’s, and does not include extras from other shipbuilders – like the Zumwalt’s composite deckhouse from HII. As such, DDG 113’s furnished equipment is very likely to be less expensive in absolute terms. The question is, would it be more than 30% less expensive, which is required in order to be lower relative to shipbuilding costs?

The Navy also announces a $697.6 million fixed-price-incentive contract for DDG 114 construction. For DDG 114 construction, significant amounts of work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS; Cincinnati, OH; Walpole, MA; York, PA; Charlottesville, VA; Erie, PA; and Burns Harbor, IN; and is expected to be complete by July 2018. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was procured via a limited competition between Huntington Ingalls and Bath Iron Works, run by US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC (N00024-11-C-2305). See also HII.

Work will be performed in Moorestown, N.J. (37%); Bath, ME (25%); Pascagoula, MO (22%); San Diego, Calif. (6%); Washington, DC (5%); Norfolk, VA (3M); Port Hueneme, CA (1%); and Syracuse, NY (1%). Work is expected to be completed by September 2012. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington Navy Yard, DC, is the contracting activity.

June 15/11: Huntington Ingalls, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives a fixed-price-incentive contract for DDG 113 construction, engineering change proposals, and design budgeting – in other words, the main ship contract. The US Navy just won’t tell anyone what the cost is. They’ll only say that “significant work” will be performed in Pascagoula, MS; Cincinnati, OH; Walpole, MA; Burns Harbor, IN; York, PA; and Charlottesville, VA. Work is expected to be complete by July 2017. This contract was not competitively procured by US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC (N00024-11-C-2309). And yet:

“As this award represents the first DDG 51 class ship to be awarded for the continuation of the DDG 51 class program, and there is a competitive solicitation for [3] additional DDG 51 class ships, the contract award amount and percentages of work to be performed in each location for DDG 113 are considered source selection information (see 41 U.S.C. 2101, et seq., FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104) and will not be made public at this time.”

We’ve seen a similar pattern recently in the Littoral Combat Ship program, and the net effect is to obscure the program’s major costs from public view. Depending on how long the Navy decides to define the program as competitively solicited, and it has been built in 2 shipyards for a long time now, this could obscure costs for many years. All for a critical component of the American fleet. See also H.I.I. release.

June 15/11: Defense News reports that Saudi Arabia may be shifting their focus away from a fully armed variant of the Littoral Combat Ship, carrying the smaller AN/SPY-1F radar and AEGIS combat system. In its place, they received May 2011 briefings concerning full DDG-51 Arleigh Burke Class destroyers displacing about 3 times the tonnage, with ballistic missile defense capability upgrades. The cost trade-off would be about 4-6 modified LCS ships, in exchange for about 2 DDG-51 Flight IIA BMD ships.

The unspoken threat here is, of course, Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. The unspoken concern is the security of a top-level defense technology, which is critical to defending the USA and its allies, in Saudi hands.

To date, the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class has never been exported per se, though their AEGIS combat system and accompanying AN/SPY-1D radars have. Japan is the only foreign country with full AEGIS BMD systems, on board their natively produced Kongo Class destroyers. Spanish F100 frigates have participated in US missile defense tests, and are eligible for the full BMD upgrade; Australia’s forthcoming Hobart Class “destroyers” are a close derivative. South Korea’s large KDX-III destroyers could be upgraded to add BMD capabilities, but the smaller SPY-1F radars on Norway’s Fridjhof Nansen Class frigates don’t have that same upgrade path available.

Another possible option for Saudi Arabia would be used US Navy DDG-51 Flight I ships, upgraded with AEGIS BMD. That would allow the Saudis to field more ships for the same money, if an agreement was reached. The costs would lie in questions about hull life and length of service, and the Flight Is’ lack of a helicopter hangar. Helicopters have been shown to be essential defenses against speedboat threats, of the kind that Iran fields in the Persian/Arabian Gulf. Defense News | Information Dissemination.

June 12/11: Looking ahead, Aviation Week reports that DDG-51 Flight III may be hitting design growth problems. Power, cooling, and weight distribution have always been seen as the most likely stumbling blocks to fitting next-generation radars like AMDR on the DDG-51 hull, and:

“As the possible requirements and expectations continue to grow for the proposed DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class Flight III destroyers, so is the concern among defense analysts and contractors that the U.S. Navy may once again be trying to pack too much into one ship… And yet it is the need to field [AMDR] that is driving some of the additional requirements for the Flight IIIs… “Sometimes we get caught up in the glamour of the high technology,” Huntington Ingalls Industries CEO Mike Petters says. “The radars get bounced around. They get changed. Their missions get changed. The technology changes. The challenge is if you let the radars drive the ships, you might not get any ships built.”

June 3/11: BAE Systems Land & Armaments, LP in Minneapolis, MN wins a $54.6 million firm-fixed-price sole-source contract for MK 41 Vertical Launching System mechanical modules and related equipment and services. This contract includes options which, if exercised, would bring its cumulative value to $55.5 million.

A June 22/11 BAE release reveals that the equipment will be installed in HII’s DDG 113 & 114, and Bath Iron Works’ DDG-115. Each ship will receive 2 sets, for a total of 6. Production on the missile launchers will begin in June 2011 and run through 2013, though the contract runs to September 2015. Work will be performed in Aberdeen, SD (45%); Aiken, SC (25%); York, PA (20%); Louisville, KY (5%); and Fridley, MN (5%). Work is expected to be complete by September 2015 (N00024-11-C-5301).

June 2/11: Northrop Grumman spinoff Huntington Ingalls Industries in Pascagoula, MS receives a $25.3 million not-to-exceed contract modification for DDG 113 long lead time materials, which must be bought early to keep the ship on schedule.

Work will be performed in Cincinnati, OH (60%), and Pascagoula, MS (40%), and is expected to be complete by June 2011 (N00024-10-C-2308).

Feb 25/11: Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Sensors in Moorestown, NJ receives a $26.7 million contract modification, exercising an option for DDG 114’s Aegis weapon system, including a multi-mission signal processor, and associated special tooling and special test equipment.

Work will be performed in Moorestown, NJ (87%), and Clearwater, FL (13%), and is expected to be complete by November 2013. US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC manages the contract.

Dec 20/10: Raytheon Co. in Sudbury, MA receives a $45.3 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising options for the production of 2 AN/SPY-1Dv transmitter groups and 2 MK 99 Mod 8 fire control systems, for installation on DDG 114 (Northrop Grumman) and DDG 115 (GD). See also May 3/10.

Work will be performed in Andover, MA (88%), and Sudbury, MA (12%), and is expected to be complete by April 2013. US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington Navy Yard, DC manages the contract (N00024-09-C-5111).

Oct 14/10: Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Sensors in Moorestown, NJ received a $97 million contract modification t finalize production of the DDG 113 Aegis weapon system (including a multi-mission signal processor [MMSP]); plus an additional MMSP for the Surface Combat System Center on Wallops Island, VA; DDG 114-115 advanced procurement efforts; and associated technical services. Note that DDG 115 is being built by General Dynamics Bath Iron Works.

Work will be performed in Moorestown, NJ (87%), and Clearwater, FL (13%), and is expected to be complete by October 2014 (N00024-09-C-5110).

Work will be performed in Louisville, KY (80%), and Minneapolis, MN (20%), and is expected to be complete by February 2013. $282,340 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10. The contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Surface Warfare Center’s Port Hueneme Division in Port Hueneme, CA (N00024-07-G-5438).

Work will be performed in Andover, MA (88%), and Sudbury, MA (12%), and is expected to be complete by February 2014. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington Navy Yard, DC manages these contracts (N00024-09-C-5111).

June 21/10: Philadelphia Gear Corp. announces an $80 million contract to provide main reduction gears for 3 new Arleigh Burke Class destroyers (DDG 113, 114, and 115). Options for additional ships could bring the contract’s eventual total to more than $425 million.

Philadelphia Gear has supplied supplied gears, sprockets and transmissions for US Navy ships since the First World War, and the firm now specializes in the design and manufacture of Main Reduction Gears (MRGs) for front line combat and support vessels. Main reduction gears are used to turn the very fast rotational speed of an engine, such as a DDG-51 type destroyers’ LM2500 turbines, into efficient slower speed rotation of the ships’ propellers. The entire assembly weighs over 100,000 pounds, is rated at at 51,550 shp, and uses a reduction ratio of 21.3746 to 1.

Note that this contract will supply both Northrop Grumman (DDG 113/114) and Bath Iron Works (DDG 115). Earlier this year, Philadelphia Gear announced plans to move its West Coast operations from Lynwood, CA to a renovated facility in Santa Fe Springs, near Los Angeles. The new 120,000 square foot facility is slated to open in Q3 2010, and will house all assembly and test, plus more than 80% of the manufacturing work for the US Navy’s DDG program. Philadelphia Gear Corp. | FedBizOpps solicitation, which explains the exact structure of these main reduction gears.

May 3/10: “Government-Furnished Equipment” remains a substantial share of any warship’s cost. Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Sensors in Moorestown, NJ receives a $91.3 million firm-fixed-price not-to-exceed modification to a previously awarded contract for advance procurement of the consolidated bill of material and associated labor to support beryllium oxide resistors, phase shifters, surface mount work center production and engineering services support of production of the DDG 114 and 115’s Aegis weapon system.

Aegis refers to both the SPY-1 radars that equip these ships, and the combat system that integrates the ship’s radar and weapons into a single coordinated defensive system. It is so integral to this and related ship classes that they are frequently described in common parlance as “Aegis destroyers/ cruisers/ frigates.”

Work will be performed in Moorestown, NJ (85%), and Clearwater, FL (15%), and is expected to be complete by December 2011. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington Navy Yard, D.C. manages these contracts (N00024-09-C-5110).

April 22/10: Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives an $114 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-10-C-2308), exercising an option for long lead time materials. This includes propulsion gas turbines, generators, controllable pitch propeller, and other components to support construction of DDG 114, the firm’s 30th DDG-51 destroyer.

Work will performed in Cincinnati, OH (32%); Walpole, MA (30%); Charlottesville, VA (11%); Erie, PA (7%); Anaheim, CA (7%); Warminster, PA (2%); and various locations (11%). The effort is anticipated to start immediately, with a base period of performance ending 37 months after contract award. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington Navy Yard, DC manages the contracts. See also Northrop Grumman release.

Dec 2/09: Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives a not-to-exceed $170.7 million letter contract for DDG 113 long lead time materials under the DDG 51 Arleigh Burke Class destroyer program. Funds will be used to buy things like propulsion gas turbines, generators, air conditioning systems, controllable pitch propeller and other components, so they’ll be ready in time when construction of DDG 113 begins.

Work is expected to be performed in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Alabama, Indiana, Louisiana., Mississippi, New York, Texas, Virginia and Washington, to be completed by January 2013. This contract was not competitively procured by The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington Navy Yard, DC, since Northrop Grumman had already been picked to build the ship (N00024-10-C-2308).

FY 2009

April 7/09: Rep. Gene Taylor [D-MS, Seapower subcommittee chair] announces that the Pentagon has reached agreements with General Dynamics’ Bath Iron Works in Maine, and with Northrop Grumman’s Ingalls Shipyard in Mississippi. Read “Bath, Ingalls Agree to Navy’s Surface Combatant Plans” for details of the arrangements.

“…in this request, we will include funds to complete the buy of two navy destroyers in FY10. These plans depend on being able to work out contracts to allow the Navy to efficiently build all three DDG-1000 class ships at Bath Iron Works in Maine and to smoothly restart the DDG-51 Aegis Destroyer program at Northrop Grumman’s Ingalls shipyard in Mississippi. Even if these arrangements work out, the DDG-1000 program would end with the third ship and the DDG-51 would continue to be built in both yards.

If our efforts with industry are unsuccessful, the department will likely build only a single prototype DDG-1000 at Bath and then review our options for restarting production of the DDG-51.”

USNI Proceedings Magazine (May 2008) – Where Are the Ballistic-Missile-Defense Cruisers?. The DDG-51s, which would have been called cruisers in a previous age, are becoming that answer. Is that a good response? it could cost to give the Flight IIIs’ radar and combat systems ballistic missile defense capabilities – R&D for the function doesn’t go away when it’s rolled into a separate program. Indeed, if the Flight III cost estimate is true, it raises the question of why that would be a worthwhile use of funds, and re-opens the issue of whether continuing DDG-1000 production and upgrades might make more sense. DoD Buzz.

FOOTNOTES

fn1. The FY 2013 budget’s multi-year buy proposal estimates total savings of $1.538 billion, or 8.7% savings over buying the 9 ships with annual contracts. Current destroyers have a hardware cost of $250-350 million each for their Aegis radars and weapons systems, of which “major hardware” is an overwhelming percentage. Even if we use the low-end estimate for current systems, and assume no cost for retrofitting, 3 x $250 million would cut the projected total savings in half, dropping the proposed multi-year buy below the 5% savings threshold. [return]